Jamal Hendrix v. Romeo Aranas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX, AKA Jamar No. 18-17186
Hendrix,
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00155-MMD-
Plaintiff-Appellant, WGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROMEO ARANAS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
STATE OF NEVADA; et al.,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Jamal Damon Hendrix AKA Jamar Hendrix, a Nevada state prisoner,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983action as a sanction for failure to attend a settlement conference. We review for an
abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hendrix’s action.
Hendrix failed to attend a settlement conference, and after warning Hendrix it was
considering a dismissal sanction, the district court considered written submissions,
held a hearing, and found that Hendrix’s reasons for failure to attend were not
credible. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting
forth factors for determining whether an action should be dismissed as a sanction
for failure to comply with a court order); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782
F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We have repeatedly upheld the imposition of the
sanction of dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by
local rules and court orders.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-17186